That is science all about--it has to be supported by facts. But the Words are given different meanings by science. It does not necessarily need scientific methods to fully understand it, it simply needs faith. Man keeps in confusing his mind by making simple things more complicated than the usual. Yes, we do open our mind to different possibilities to broaden our perspective, to treat things justifiably. But what is more important to work on is to continue our living at the present. Enough to see that ourselves are breathing today, that we progress each day because we work for it hardly. Appreciate the past but question it no more. There is nothing wrong if we would like to achieve more than anything we have today. For the realization at the end is the simple thing that at least, we have achieved something.

---Just one act of random kindness at a time and you can change the world---

"I am a student in the University of Makati in the Philippines. I may not be a bible reader but I might suggest that thesestuffs written in the bible may not be accurate. Because only people translated it into what it is now. I am a church servant,on the contrary... I love science,because it tells us how life function! It is great indeed that God designed a very beautiful worldfor us to live in without complications. But we humans tend to seek more of what is life all about."

Science and Religion, I might say.. is very connected to each other! How? Because every living creature on earth has LIFE..And this life is governed by natural energy- GOD! Why do you think we breath? Its because, we have life and how this life function?Biologically speaking, we have cells that functions in life processes, and this cells make up tissues, and this tissues make up organs and thisorgans make up the systems of the body and these systems makes up the Body itself.

But aside from these facts.. Why do you think these stuffs work? Its because God governs each being that walks the earth.Lets not isolate Science with religion.... that's all. tnx

Jellybeans wrote: But we humans tend to seek more of what is life all about."

You are indeed right here. However, some people are also having confusion in regards to religion and what really a FAITH should be. Religion is also a knowledge, that we man had created here on earth because we are also asking about our Creator as well. In addition, it's a man-tenet dogma.But anyway, hope you'll enjoy the forums--see how everything on earth are carefully investigated? these are just some of them. Good luck!

Last edited by mcar on Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

---Just one act of random kindness at a time and you can change the world---

Well, its nice knowing MichealXY, it seems lyk he enjoyed his stay here in our place.Well, investigation of all stuffs regarding Science is so much fun!I believe I gotta be enjoying all these stuffs here!

"my question is does Darwin's real concept of evolution contradicts or *opposes* that of the bible's concept or his concept simply complements that of the Bible's"

When Darwin did his research on evolution and wrote his book "Origins of Species", he knew what he was doing would offend people of the Church.

Science is naturalistic - working with our surroundings to come up concepts of truth and understandings. Darwin saw relationship between other species and their interaction with environments and saw a correlation between anatomy, behaviour with environment(s).

Darwin flatly admitted that he could describe the processes of evolution but could not define the origin - the beginning. This right here, can be interpreted that there is some implicature going on (i.e. some controller), but I doubt it.

But yea, the theory of evolution does oppose to the bibles notion, thus, why evolution was band from being taught at schools in America. Evolution implies that we derived from other animals and in fact we are animals, which contradicts the anthropocentric view of the bible that states in the book of Genesis

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.This verse implies we are beyond other animals, according to the chain of being, are separate from animals. Darwin's theory questions that.Here is another quote that could support my answer

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.” - Charles Darwin

Darwin was just stating the facts, it just happened to be that it was going against the creationism movement.

Darwin420 wrote: "my question is does Darwin's real concept of evolution contradicts or *opposes* that of the bible's concept or his concept simply complements that of the Bible's"

In one of the books I've read, it was not really his intentions to contradict that of the Bible's. Darwin's thoughts are more of telling that the origin of species is not necessarily talking about the progress from a simple to a more complex being. It's how is an organism, already existing was able to modify to an extent that made it adapted to certain selective pressures imposed by its nature.

Welcome here, Darwin420.

---Just one act of random kindness at a time and you can change the world---

Although Darwin certainly knew that his theory would offend prevailing religious authorities, his desire was never for this to happen. He might perhaps be compared in this way to Jesus Christ, Who had nothing but good will yet was still seen as a threat by the Pharisees. I am in no way trying to imply that Darwin is equivalent to Christ (although many atheists seem to worship him as such), but in this the two share a common pattern. Indeed, in Darwin's England, the Church was literally the pawn of the government; a convention going back to the English Reformation under Henry VIII, who had converted the English church from an independent religious organization into a tool for exerting royal power and will over the people. The English Church thus represented a large degree of authority and social control unparalleled by any other religion since the Sanhedrin of Jesus's day. In Victorian society the essence of virtue was to follow the established norm; "Don't rock the boat," one might say. This is why the Church of England was such a powerful force in opposing Darwin.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that Christianity in general should be opposed to evolution. One must not forget that the largest Christian Church in the world, Roman Catholicism, has never opposed evolution, and has had its own theories of evolution since long before Darwin, dating back to St. Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century. Indeed it was a Catholic monk, Gregor Mendel, who significantly advanced Darwin's theory and founded the modern study of genetics; it was also the Catholic Church that developed the big bang theory in order to scientifically prove the existence of God. This Catholic acceptance of scientific theory may have contributed to the Anglican Church's opposition of evolution at least as much as Victorian conformism. The Anglican Church had long opposed anything Catholic as "antichrist," a bitter rivalry dating back to the wars between Protestant England and Catholic Spain.

But enough history lessons for now. In principle, there is no reason why evolutionary theory and traditional Christianity should be opposed to each other. On the religious side of the issue, the creation story in Genesis seems to me to be a remarkably accurate (although heavily symbolic) narrative of the evolution of life on Earth. Add to this the long history of Christian acceptance and development of evolutionary theory (dating from centuries before Darwin), and the acceptance of evolution by orthodox Christianity is no problem. On the scientific side, evolution has always been a story of how life developed after it was created, not how it was created in the first place. At least in principle, there should be no reason why an omnipotent deity would not have chosen to create the first life and then allow it to evolve on its own into the many species of today. Add to this the fact that many of the most prominent evolutionary scientists have been Christians, and it is obvious that the acceptance of faith by modern science is no problem.

The great rivalry between faith and science is largely a false conflict that has been created and fed by both sides as a ploy for power and prestige. Just as the Church of England in Darwin's day was largely a tool to advance a political agenda, so too is today's evangelical movement more concerned with political power than with advancing the Christian faith. Similarly, the anti-religious movement (expressed by quite a few hard-line atheists here on this forum) is also more concerned with gaining power to advance an agenda (in this case the exact opposite agenda of that proposed by their evangelical opponents) than with actually advancing the good of science. It would thus be to the great benefit of both sides if such foolish dreams of rivalry and power were put down in favor of an attitude of mutual respect and cooperation towards the common good of all mankind.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.